Poor Kids Vrs Poor Schools
Document 029.14.0.1 # 27
Poor Kids vs. Poor Schools
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is nothing, I repeat nothing, about a 'wall of separation between
church and state'. So why do we hear
that phrase repeated by liberals so often? Could it be that they are immoral
and know it? Could it be that
those who indulge in immoral practices want you and I and the children of
this nation to be denied spiritual
guidance and the RIGHT TO SPIRITUALITY? Could it be that if we hear a lie
often enough we will believe it?
Who is the state? We are! But WE have allowed appointed judges and elected
representatives to hijack our
nation and our Constitution. Not just in matters of religion, IN EVERY FACET
OF OUR LIVES.
But the liberals, communists and atheists want you to think there is a
'wall'. Can we examine this Amendment closely? We the people, citizens,
have the RIGHT to "freely exercise" the religion of our choice. Jewish
people have the right to display the Star of David and no one has attacked
them for that. Odd.
But Christianity is under attack and that is the crux of the 'liberal'
opposition to school choice, and yes they
want to protect the 'government' controlled institution which has produced
generations of 'dumded down' children and adults.
Lastly, this is more about government power and maintaining the status quo
than anything else. Will we
demand a new and better way or allow the bad teachers and administrators to
continue the 'Dumbing of America'.
[End of comments of sender, David Lewellyn]
OUTSIDE THE BOX
Poor Kids vs. Poor Schools
Liberals want to preserve the latter at the former's expense.
BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:01 a.m.
"A Matter of Church and State" was the headline of the New York Times lead
editorial on the morning of Feb. 20, the day the Cleveland school voucher
case was argued before the Supreme Court. Speaking for the liberal
establishment, the Times argued that vouchers that allow low-income parents
to send their children to a religious school violated the First Amendment.
But the establishment clause is not what the case is about; it is about the
protection of the public education bureaucracy. Should state governments be
allowed to give scholarships funded by tax dollars to low-income students to
attend community (charter) schools or private schools (including religious
private schools) in order to assist children in getting a better education?
Liberal doctrine holds that such scholarships are too threatening to the
public schools and their teachers. Indeed, the last paragraph of the Times
editorial gives the game away: "Even if the voucher program were not
unconstitutional, however, we would object to it because it drains human and
financial resources from public education."
But that's a losing argument, which Norm Lockman, a columnist for the
Wilmington (Del.) News Journal, wholly eviscerated last year: "I don't see
how those of us who consider ourselves liberals can continue to argue that
the children of the poor must be prohibited from seeking better education in
different schools because it is unfair to the people who are failing to
educate them properly."
As a practical matter, the church-and-state argument has been pretty well
decided. An older American can constitutionally endorse his Social Security
check (funded with tax dollars) to a Protestant church. A younger American
who served in the military can use his G.I. Bill scholarship (funded with
tax dollars) at a Catholic university to study for the priesthood. And a
low-income American can use his Pell Grant to attend a Jewish college or her
federal child-care voucher to send her son to a church-run day-care center.
So it stands to reason that a low-income parent can use his school voucher
(also funded with tax dollars) to get his daughter into an elementary school
that can teach her to read and write and count.
Likewise the practical arguments used against vouchers have been
substantially refuted. "Vouchers do not help the students who need the help
the most," says Sen. Hillary Clinton. "Vouchers aren't helping the children
they were designed to help: students doing poorly in low-performing public
schools," says former North Carolina governor Jim Hunt. But the Cleveland
voucher program targets precisely poor children stuck in failing schools. So
bad are the schools that Ohio's Education Department, governor and
Legislature declared an "education emergency" and enacted the voucher
program.
The education establishment argues that such choices threaten the public
education system and must not be permitted because the best and brightest
and wealthiest students would use the vouchers to escape to a better
education. But in Cleveland it is not lawyers, doctors and IBM executives
with kids in suburban schools who are lining up to get vouchers. It is
low-income and minority parents whose children are in the worst educational
programs--what Clinton education secretary Richard Riley once called
"schools that should never be called schools at all"--and who the education
establishment says must stay there lest educators be harmed.
Then there is the question of academic performance. USA Today reports that
black students who stayed in a private scholarship program in New York for
three years "enjoyed a nine-point jump in national test scores--about half
the test-score gap between blacks and whites," but complains that
"African-American students may be the only students to benefit
academically." (Now that's an odd argument in this day and age.) So, it
concludes, "unless vouchers improve academic achievement, they should have
no future--regardless of the Supreme Court's decision about the Cleveland
program." USA Today's editors also seem to be more concerned about disturbin
g the education bureaucracy than allowing low-income children to attend a
decent school.
Poor teaching of academics is the primary reason that parents want their
children to go to a better school; learning to read and basic mathematics is
essential to a successful future. But there are other reasons: safety,
escape from criminal and drug cultures, and a desire for a disciplined and
different culture.
It is the insistence that poor children must permanently remain in failed
schools "that should never be called schools at all" that is the folly of
liberal arguments. Or, as Norm Lockman put it: "Vouchers should be used to
end the entrapment of poor children in schools that do not serve them well.
It is a civil rights issue."
Indeed it is; it is an issue of civil rights and fairness, not of church
and state. Interestingly, the justices of the Supreme Court seem to
understand this too, for in their questioning of the lawyers on Feb. 20
there was almost no interest in the establishment clause. Most of the
questions focused on the performance of the Cleveland schools, on charter
and choice schools and how the whole educational system fit together. Six
justices asked more than two dozen questions about educational choices and
the quality of the schools available to children.
How the Court will rule later in the spring is hard to predict, but since
voucher opponents had the burden of proving--not just arguing--that the
voucher plan is unconstitutional, the court will likely uphold the right of
Ohio to give a voucher and a choice to low income students trapped by law in
an abysmal school system.
The tougher task lies in the heart of the liberal establishment, for it has
become a shrill advocate for an education system that is failing the poor
and thus insuring their continuing poverty. The question before the court of
public understanding is: Why are liberals discriminating against the poor?
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the
Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears
Wednesdays.
Copyright ? 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this
message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for
non-profit research and educational purposes only.
David A. Sanders I'm Black, and I'm Right!
Black_Conservatives@yahoogroups.com
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these
acts, and those who harbor them."
President George W. Bush September 11, 2001
Forwarded by: David Lewellyn Member Brain & Spinal Cord Network
029.14.0.1 # 27 End.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans." Comrade Pres W. J. Klinton. USAToday. 11 Mar 93. Pg 2A. "You
know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to
have their fair say." Comrade Pres W. J. Klinton. 28 May 93. The Courtyard.
City Hall, Philadelphia. "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing
through our papers. We are the President." Comrade Hillary Diane Klinton.